Is fornication sinful?

[TJ in Oregon]

I guess my post got TL;DR'ed?

I'll admit to not entirely understanding it. If not love, then what is the basis of marriage? Are you saying that it is sex? Because, at least to me, the idea of the basis of marriage being its monopoly over sexual activity strikes me as very, well... bad.

At risk of putting words into his mouth, I interpreted his post as meaning the basis of marriage is love defined as willing the good of the other rather than love defined as attraction. Perhaps given the multiple meanings of 'love', a better term for what he is describing would be 'commitment'.

[Never]

Well, if you don't believe that there is a God, I don't think that you can guide a Christian like me on how to interpret the Bible... though you are definitely entitled to your own opinions about fornication. As a Christian, I do in fact view the Bible as a handbook for my life that is applicable to a significant number of situations, and if that makes me a religious fundamentalist, so be it. You said that I should look at the "spirit of the Bible", but the Bible would mean nothing to me if there is no such thing as God. I do understand that I am to apply the Bible based on the setting I face as a twenty-first century American, but that doesn't mean that I should accept fornication because America is a different culture from the one in which the Bible was written. Saying that we should accept fornication because it is common practice in America is what I consider moral relativism, and I cannot endorse that as I consider doing so to be a threat to my relationship with God.

You're misconstruing what I said. 

The Bible is relevant to any situation, but not specifically in a rule-based way.  You ought to take the spirit of Christianity, which is kindness, caring for poor and disadvantaged people, honesty, egalitarianism, loving your family, etc.  You shouldn't take the specific ancient rules and apply them to your life.  After all, God didn't write the Bible.  Nobody believes that, right?

And, no, I'm not a moral relativist.  I believe in fixed morality, but with every morality judgement taking into account the facts and circumstances of the situation. 

You said that you agree infanticide is terrible, but if you aren't basing that on a higher power, what are you basing it on? Your own reasoning? It's a good thing to think for yourself, but something isn't terrible just because an individual feels that it is.

I'm not the only person that thinks murder is generally wrong. 

If as a human race we decide what is morally just by ourselves, we will inevitably make mistakes. There are no morally perfect people. For me, sex is too important of a life issue to assume that I don't need any spiritual guidance from Christ on it.  God is way more than donuts and orange juice on Sunday morning at church.

Whatever people do, they'll make mistakes.  But, I don't believe in these ironclad rules and lawmaking done by deities.  A practical morality that is based on modern understandings of sexuality, health and family is always debatable and fraught, but it's superior to the barbarism and puritanism of the Bible.  And, we see that today.  If you look at these so-called religious people, they tend to be the biggest sexual deviants.

Oh, I didn't mean to take anything that you said out of context; I do try to keep a discussion civil and balanced, especially when discussing serious matters like spirituality.

God didn't sit down and write the Bible, but I do believe that He inspired it all without error through the men He used to write the specific books comprising the Bible in its original text.

I would like to hear more about your view of fixed morality if that's fine with you. For instance, what do you base it on? Why do you consider morality to be fixed?

You do make a good point on murder being detested by society (I'm assuming you mean ours in America), but there are other societies where murder is/was acceptable, like Sparta in ancient times and some tribal groups like those of Papua New Guinea. If murder is wrong just because most people rightfully say it is, how do we account for those societies?

I agree that modern perspectives on some issues are flawed. If our practical morality is based on "modern [likely secular] understandings of sexuality, health, and family", then it is be based on the understandings of individuals, who will inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning. Since this practical morality cannot be 100% flawless, then it is not 100% moral, which could lead one to justifiably question whether it is superior to the moral code of the Bible.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

[bedstuy]

God didn't sit down and write the Bible, but I do believe that He inspired it all without error through the men He used to write the specific books comprising the Bible in its original text.

Even so, the Bible still needs to be interpreted.  Some of it is obviously allegorical and mythical.  Some of it is poetic.  There's no reason you need to take everything 100% as literal commands. 

I would like to hear more about your view of fixed morality if that's fine with you. For instance, what do you base it on? Why do you consider morality to be fixed?

I think right and wrong in any situation is ascertainable.  I don't think morality for me is different from morality for you.  That's all I mean. 

You do make a good point on murder being detested by society (I'm assuming you mean ours in America), but there are other societies where murder is/was acceptable, like Sparta in ancient times and some tribal groups like those of Papua New Guinea. If murder is wrong just because most people rightfully say it is, how do we account for those societies?

That's just nonsense.  There's never been a society where murder was generally considered acceptable behavior. 

I agree that modern perspectives on some issues are flawed. If our practical morality is based on "modern [likely secular] understandings of sexuality, health, and family", then it is be based on the understandings of individuals, who will inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning. Since this practical morality cannot be 100% flawless, then it is not 100% moral, which could lead one to justifiably question whether it is superior to the moral code of the Bible.

I would take the morality of modern day educated Americans over the morality of the Bible any day of the week.

[TJ in Oregon]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one? With issues of personal morality like this one without large political ramifications and moral quandaries that will arise from other things like tax policies for example, on which you seem to remain an idealist, what reasons are there for the departure from your ideal world? What do you mean by "true for me personally"? Are you advocating a relative sexual ethic that differs from person to person?

[Never]

God didn't sit down and write the Bible, but I do believe that He inspired it all without error through the men He used to write the specific books comprising the Bible in its original text.

Even so, the Bible still needs to be interpreted.  Some of it is obviously allegorical and mythical.  Some of it is poetic.  There's no reason you need to take everything 100% as literal commands. 

I would like to hear more about your view of fixed morality if that's fine with you. For instance, what do you base it on? Why do you consider morality to be fixed?

I think right and wrong in any situation is ascertainable.  I don't think morality for me is different from morality for you.  That's all I mean. 

You do make a good point on murder being detested by society (I'm assuming you mean ours in America), but there are other societies where murder is/was acceptable, like Sparta in ancient times and some tribal groups like those of Papua New Guinea. If murder is wrong just because most people rightfully say it is, how do we account for those societies?

That's just nonsense.  There's never been a society where murder was generally considered acceptable behavior. 

I agree that modern perspectives on some issues are flawed. If our practical morality is based on "modern [likely secular] understandings of sexuality, health, and family", then it is be based on the understandings of individuals, who will inevitably make mistakes in their reasoning. Since this practical morality cannot be 100% flawless, then it is not 100% moral, which could lead one to justifiably question whether it is superior to the moral code of the Bible.

I would take the morality of modern day educated Americans over the morality of the Bible any day of the week.

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one?

I'm not so much embracing practicality as I am saying that those are my views when I do think in practical terms. I still prefer to think in ideal terms, on this as in pretty much everything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being sick of arguing with people about a subject that I find especially emotionally exhausting, for the most part. What I mean by 'practical terms' is 'what I can reasonably expect of the people around me who don't share all my views'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That was poorly worded. I apologize. I mean that my actual views haven't changed (and also that I'm personally uninterested enough in sex not to have the problem that Simfan is describing). I'm advocating letting myself be emotionally exhausted and not having to deal with this so much.

[bedstuy]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

[TJ in Oregon]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one?

I'm not so much embracing practicality as I am saying that those are my views when I do think in practical terms. I still prefer to think in ideal terms, on this as in pretty much everything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being sick of arguing with people about a subject that I find especially emotionally exhausting, for the most part. What I mean by 'practical terms' is 'what I can reasonably expect of the people around me who don't share all my views'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That was poorly worded. I apologize. I mean that my actual views haven't changed (and also that I'm personally uninterested enough in sex not to have the problem that Simfan is describing). I'm advocating letting myself be emotionally exhausted and not having to deal with this so much.

Fair enough. I was under the impression from that previous post you were arguing that fornication is not sinful, which I can now is not what you're arguing. Thanks for the clarification.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

For what it's worth my actual, practical, other-people's-real-lives views on this issue are around where Ernest's, Cassius's, and Scott's are (never a group of posters I thought I'd say that about all at once!), for all that my tendency to frame things in terms of what would be the case in an ideal world or what's true for me personally makes me come across as significantly more conservative and hidebound about it.

Of all the issues to suddenly embrace practicality on, why this one?

I'm not so much embracing practicality as I am saying that those are my views when I do think in practical terms. I still prefer to think in ideal terms, on this as in pretty much everything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being sick of arguing with people about a subject that I find especially emotionally exhausting, for the most part. What I mean by 'practical terms' is 'what I can reasonably expect of the people around me who don't share all my views'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That was poorly worded. I apologize. I mean that my actual views haven't changed (and also that I'm personally uninterested enough in sex not to have the problem that Simfan is describing). I'm advocating letting myself be emotionally exhausted and not having to deal with this so much.

Fair enough. I was under the impression from that previous post you were arguing that fornication is not sinful, which I can now is not what you're arguing. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm arguing that it's not sinful enough to be worth kamikazeing my social relationships over (independent of aggravating factors, like if there was dishonesty involved or a friendship was somehow built on an understanding of these things that turned out not to be true). That's all.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm arguing that it's not sinful enough to be worth kamikazeing my social relationships over (independent of aggravating factors, like if there was dishonesty involved or a friendship was somehow built on an understanding of these things that turned out not to be true). That's all.

Well of course. How can you ever hope to convince them of the truth if you kamikaze your social relationships over it? I'd like to think you (and I) can have friends without supporting their every life decision but treating them the same regardless. I (think) I have quite a few friends who fornicate, know my beliefs on the matter, and are still willing to be friends regardless. Maybe they're all just pretending to like me while they go home and stick pins in their TJ dolls every night because I think fornication is sinful. Maybe I just have extraordinarily thick-skinned friends. But I think it's possible to do.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Something I should have touched upon more in my post: early last month, I wanted to hear what Christians in my 'circle' thought about pornography, and moreover, sexuality and culture in general.  Of course, few people were willing to partake in the discussion given that it's not something most are comfortable with being open about.  But, the guy who runs the page told me something that I found satisfying, even though it wasn't exactly the clear-cut answer I was seeking in the first place.

That is, in short, pornography wasn't as much the discomfort I found as it was sexuality.  America, through its popularization of sex, shows all the symptoms of the sexually oppressed.  However, Christians should be circumspect in pronouncements of harm without real facts and evidence.  This can easily be extended to premarital sex.  You can be as vague or as detailed about how you think God wants you to behave, but at the end of the day, it will always be regarded as opinion wrapped in religious packaging.  That doesn't settle the argument.  Promiscuity clearly has a strong, poisonous trait to it and can prevent one from functioning in a healthy way, but that doesn't mean everyone who has sex without taking their marriage vows (which is well beyond the majority of the world population) is 'evil.'

Indeed, as I have implied, I think there are strong secular arguments to be made against taking sex for granted or using it as a means of self-gratification, but consent and harm done is always key.  All people should be expected to oppose coercion or involvement of children in sex, but failing that, let's go back to what we absolutely know is wrong and uncompromising.  Don't use sex as yet another excuse to establish hierarchy be it based on gender, sexuality, or moral character.  God is still going to be God if you "miss the mark" (literally what "sin" means) or not.

I realize there was little point in me having wrote that given that everyone here has pretty much made up their mind on how the Bible should be interpreted, if taken seriously at all, but that's what's come to be my 'rule of thumb' throughout my reading.  If you still think that memorizing Bible verses and having all the right opinions on wedge issues makes you a good or better person, then great.  Do what makes you happy.  Just don't use it as a way to play "gotcha" on someone who isn't playing by the same arbitrary rules as you are, and don't think that using horror stories and ultimately toothless threats is going to make people conform the way you want people to conform.  I promise you - you will lose.

[Simfan34]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

That sounds romantic and cute and all but I think the Bible, not to mention the Church, is very clear about this. It'd be nice and all but I think it's all very cut and dry. Very cut and dry.

Do I like it? Not particularly. Am I morally upstanding about this? I don't know. It's a conflict.

Note this. Just because you want to do something does not make it right. Would I, given the chance, bludgeon Mengistu Hailemariam to death with a concrete block? I would. Does that make it the moral thing to do? Of course not. Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

[afleitch]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Your attempted person-shaming is entirely beyond the point. Do I need to have taken krokodil in order for my opinion of it to be worthwhile, or to be an alcoholic to have an opinion of alcoholism?

Those are hardly comparable.  Yet, while I don't think that was the point that Andrew was trying to make, I can easily see where it comes across as if he were saying that anyone who has had sex wouldn't consider fornication a sin.

I was trying to gently remind people is that sex and intimate personal and sexual relationships are things that people do; not abstract concepts. They should be approached that way. You can consider 'fornication' a sin without realising that in doing so and making judgement calls on other people's personal relationships, that that judgement in itself is more 'immoral'.

[Mopsus]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

That sounds romantic and cute and all but I think the Bible, not to mention the Church, is very clear about this. It'd be nice and all but I think it's all very cut and dry. Very cut and dry.

Do I like it? Not particularly. Am I morally upstanding about this? I don't know. It's a conflict.

Note this. Just because you want to do something does not make it right. Would I, given the chance, bludgeon Mengistu Hailemariam to death with a concrete block? I would. Does that make it the moral thing to do? Of course not. Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes (normal).

[Never]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

How do you justify societies having different exceptions to murder? Is it "more right" for some tribal people to sacrifice humans, and "more wrong" for us? Human sacrifice should be considered unacceptable regardless of setting. Similarly, fornication should always be considered unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances.  

[Never]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

That sounds romantic and cute and all but I think the Bible, not to mention the Church, is very clear about this. It'd be nice and all but I think it's all very cut and dry. Very cut and dry.

Do I like it? Not particularly. Am I morally upstanding about this? I don't know. It's a conflict.

Note this. Just because you want to do something does not make it right. Would I, given the chance, bludgeon Mengistu Hailemariam to death with a concrete block? I would. Does that make it the moral thing to do? Of course not. Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

[bedstuy]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

How do you justify societies having different exceptions to murder? Is it "more right" for some tribal people to sacrifice humans, and "more wrong" for us? Human sacrifice should be considered unacceptable regardless of setting. Similarly, fornication should always be considered unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances. 

I don't justify human sacrifice, that's wrong and would be in any culture or era.  That would include the ultimate supposed human sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth dying for our sins.

But, there's a world of difference between something inherently evil like killing and something morally neutral like having sex.  Fornication could be all kind of things, right?  It could be rape.  Would you say that a rape victim has committed a moral offense by being raped?  I hope not.  I similarly would condemn fornication if it's an act of rape.  I would condemn fornication if it's unsafe-sex or part of a sex addiction behavior.  I would say usually adultery is wrong. 

But, some "fornication" is two people in a healthy committed relationship having safe, consensual sex.  It's ridiculous to call that wrong.  There's nothing even morally questionable about that. 

[Mopsus]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

[Never]

You said that you think morality for me and you would be the same, but what if I opppose something that you find acceptable, like fornication, as we are discussing? Of course, from having a lively discussion with you, I assume that there are many things we would both consider moral, like saving a person's life, not murdering, and not stealing, but there could be some moral issues where you and I don't line up.

We have different opinions, but in a given specific situation, one of us is more right and one is more wrong.

No, it is not nonsense that murder is or was acceptable in some tribes of Papua New Guinea. Please read here, here, and here. There were tribes where murder was a common practice, barbaric as that is. In fact, the Asmat tribe required that people be named after deceased individuals, and if there weren't any available, they would kill someone in order to name the person after them. It's up to you whether you believe this or not, but the evidence is solid.

Those tribes still have a taboo against murder, but they have different exceptions than we do to killing.  We allow self-defense killing and killing in war.  Similarly, they allow killing for human sacrifice. 

How do you justify societies having different exceptions to murder? Is it "more right" for some tribal people to sacrifice humans, and "more wrong" for us? Human sacrifice should be considered unacceptable regardless of setting. Similarly, fornication should always be considered unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances. 

I don't justify human sacrifice, that's wrong and would be in any culture or era.  That would include the ultimate supposed human sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth dying for our sins.

But, there's a world of difference between something inherently evil like killing and something morally neutral like having sex.  Fornication could be all kind of things, right?  It could be rape.  Would you say that a rape victim has committed a moral offense by being raped?  I hope not.  I similarly would condemn fornication if it's an act of rape.  I would condemn fornication if it's unsafe-sex or part of a sex addiction behavior.  I would say usually adultery is wrong. 

But, some "fornication" is two people in a healthy committed relationship having safe, consensual sex.  It's ridiculous to call that wrong.  There's nothing even morally questionable about that. 

Jesus is much more than just a man; we must remember that when discussing human sacrifice. After his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, even animal sacrifices aren't necessary (though it is worth noting that human sacrifices were condemned in the Old Testament - Jesus being the Messiah is a very special and isolated exception). You aren't saying that it is a bad thing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, are you? I am of the understanding that you question the actuality of the crucifixion and resurrection (I believe both, FWIW). If Jesus never did die on the cross, then everyone would be subject to an eternity in hell.

Rape victims do not merit any blame. They are not the ones at fault; they aren't the ones who want to have sex. The rapist, on the other hand, could have a sick mind and enjoy the action they are taking.

So you disagree with adultery, as do I. Am I correct in inferring that the main form of fornication that you accept is premarital sex? Sure, two unmarried individuals could consent to fornication and enjoy it, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

For the record, I have known people who cohabited for years and had sex outside of the confines of marriage, and they were some of the nicest folks I have met, but that doesn't make their action morally acceptable.

[bedstuy]

Jesus is much more than just a man; we must remember that when discussing human sacrifice. After his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, even animal sacrifices aren't necessary (though it is worth noting that human sacrifices were condemned in the Old Testament - Jesus being the Messiah is a very special and isolated exception). You aren't saying that it is a bad thing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, are you? I am of the understanding that you question the actuality of the crucifixion and resurrection (I believe both, FWIW). If Jesus never did die on the cross, then everyone would be subject to an eternity in hell.

If God existed, I don't think human sacrifice would ever be legitimate, including sacrificing Jesus.  Someone else being punished can't repay whatever I've done wrong.  But obviously, I don't believe that Jesus came back to life at any point and he was a normal human being like anyone else. 

Rape victims do not merit any blame. They are not the ones at fault; they aren't the ones who want to have sex. The rapist, on the other hand, could have a sick mind and enjoy the action they are taking.

That's an exception to fornication being immoral, but I suppose for you it's one of intent. 

So you disagree with adultery, as do I. Am I correct in inferring that the main form of fornication that you accept is premarital sex? Sure, two unmarried individuals could consent to fornication and enjoy it, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

Usually adultery is wrong, but not always. 

For the record, I have known people who cohabited for years and had sex outside of the confines of marriage, and they were some of the nicest folks I have met, but that doesn't make their action morally acceptable.

What is wrong with it, specifically?

[Never]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

[bedstuy]

Just because sex is nice, pleasurable, emotionally fulfilling, what have you, does not make it acceptable in the eyes of God. The Bible is very clear on this. If not fornication, adultery- which includes premarital sex (as far as the Church is concerned, at the very least)- is considered a grave sin. There really is no argument here.

If something is nice, pleasurable, and emotionally fulfilling, why would God consider it unacceptable?

Well, "nice" is a bit subjective.

Could a calculating serial killer consider murder pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling? Could a rapist enjoy the destructive actions that he decides to take? I suspect this might be the case.

As sinful humans, we can "like" something that isn't actually the best for us. Based on that, God likely considers some things unacceptable even if they are enjoyed by people.

Rape and murder, in general, are decidedly not pleasurable for at least one of the parties involved. It is from this fact that their immorality is derived. If you're going to assert that fornication in general, which is, generally speaking, pleasurable for all parties, is immoral, then the burden is on you to prove that fornicating, in general, is not in people's best interest.

So you are saying that something is moral because it is pleasurable? In other words, if it feels good, do it? That sounds hedonistic to me. Considering that fornication has various disadvantages and can cause damage, even if the full extent of that damage isn't readily seen, I question the narrative that fornication is good for all parties involved.

No, I didn't say that.  I said "fornication" is morally acceptable in the abstract because there is nothing inherently wrong about consensual safe-sex. And that list you provided is thoroughly ridiculous.  Basically it boils down to, "God said so," and watch out for STDs!!!/unwanted children.  We've dealt with both of those issues.

Can you give me a reason, besides a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Bible or the idea that sex is inevitably dangerous, that pre-marital sex is morally wrong? 

[Never]

Jesus is much more than just a man; we must remember that when discussing human sacrifice. After his sacrifice on the cross for our sins, even animal sacrifices aren't necessary (though it is worth noting that human sacrifices were condemned in the Old Testament - Jesus being the Messiah is a very special and isolated exception). You aren't saying that it is a bad thing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, are you? I am of the understanding that you question the actuality of the crucifixion and resurrection (I believe both, FWIW). If Jesus never did die on the cross, then everyone would be subject to an eternity in hell.

If God existed, I don't think human sacrifice would ever be legitimate, including sacrificing Jesus.  Someone else being punished can't repay whatever I've done wrong.  But obviously, I don't believe that Jesus came back to life at any point and he was a normal human being like anyone else. 

Rape victims do not merit any blame. They are not the ones at fault; they aren't the ones who want to have sex. The rapist, on the other hand, could have a sick mind and enjoy the action they are taking.

That's an exception to fornication being immoral, but I suppose for you it's one of intent. 

So you disagree with adultery, as do I. Am I correct in inferring that the main form of fornication that you accept is premarital sex? Sure, two unmarried individuals could consent to fornication and enjoy it, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

Usually adultery is wrong, but not always. 

For the record, I have known people who cohabited for years and had sex outside of the confines of marriage, and they were some of the nicest folks I have met, but that doesn't make their action morally acceptable.

What is wrong with it, specifically?

If Jesus didn't die on the cross, my Christian faith means nothing. We aren't supposed to be happy that the Romans killed Jesus about two thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that we can't be grateful for Jesus for giving every person an opportunity to spend eternity in heaven.

Yes, for me it is intent. Similarly, I don't think it would be acceptable for me as a Christian to quickly judge an individual without control of their faculties for committing fornication. If someone is experiencing fornication against their will, they should not be branded as a willful fornicator.

What are the exceptions for adultery? It's either okay or not. Yes, I am being rigid here, but circumstances do not make it fine for one individual to have sex outside of their marriage while another individual can only be sexually active within the confines of their marriage. For instance, a person might be in dire need of some food, but does that mean they have a right to steal some bread, whereas an individual who is not hungry doesn't have a right to steal some ice cream? In other words, it is reasonable to argue that stealing is wrong in any case.

Are you referring to cohabitation or fornication when asking me why I thought they were wrong? I wasn't sure, so I'll answer to both for your benefit.

Cohabitation with sexual activity is wrong because God's moral code does say that you have to be married in order to have sex (Mark 10:7-9). Now, I will say that there are probably instances where the rules should be bent on this, like when African-American slaves were not married in the eyes of the law in our nation's early days (this also leads us to the understanding that racism and the American system of slavery are or were not acceptable), but even in this case there were ceremonies to make it clear to others that the two slaves were "married".

I think I've made it pretty clear about my position on fornication, but I oppose it because God says through the Bible that it is wrong, and that it has disadvantages.